Helping a Rank Beginner - Partner Frustrated - Making Stupid Mistakes
Bridge Newbie
previous "card playing" experience - none. My partner played for 3-4
years about 5 years ago and he was very good. I have moments where
I'm good, and others where I completely lose it. Last week's bridge
night was a complete disaster, making stupid, idiotic mistakes and my
partner got really angry at me. We're thinking about just not playing
anymore but I do like the game. When I make a bad bid or play a card
wrong, I can feel the anger and it just makes me make more mistakes.
Has this happened to anyone else? How did you get past it? My
partner has been extremely patient with my questions but obviously
it's not sinking in enough and now he's just getting frustrated, which
I completely understand because I'm frustrated with myself.
Thanks for your help.
castigamatti
You need more time, it is normal. I am in the learning phase myself,
it never ends, that's the beauty.
B.R.
Raija D
"Bridge Newbie" <bridge...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f70eb794-3264-4efd...@m33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
Stupid mistakes are part of the learning process. They inevitably happen.
Forgive yourself.
If live bridge is too frustrating for the time being, you might try playing
online some practice hands, buy software or CD to take some lessons, read a
bridge book suited to your level on a topic you feel most frustrated about,
etc. You will get past it in time.
none
players that want always win there are players happy to teach patiently
"Bridge Newbie" <bridge...@gmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:f70eb794-3264-4efd...@m33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
Barry Margolin
"none" <no...@libero.it> wrote:
> try a more comprensive partner, In every bridge club together with the
> players that want always win there are players happy to teach patiently
I agree (except there's no such word as "comprensive", and I can't
figure out what it's a misspelling of). Some experienced players forget
how hard it was at the beginning. There are so many things you have to
remember while bidding or playing. As with any skill, with practice it
gets easier, because the basic stuff becomes automatic. Getting angry
at a beginner is like getting angry at a child who falls off his bike
the first few tries after taking off the training wheels.
So you need to find a partner who understands that you're a beginner,
and that his job at this point is to help you improve, not win. Try
asking the club director, he may be able to find a more understanding
partner for you.
Someone else mentioned playing online. BBO has an area called the
Beginner-Intermediate Lounge (BIL Club). They offer lessons and
practice sessions where teachers will critique you. You can play games
with others who are at your level, so you won't frustrate your partners.
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
Alan Malloy
I suspect "comprensive" was intended as "understanding", but he picked
the wrong Italian cognate - comprehend instead of understand. At any
rate, I agree with you both. Your partner may be trying to be patient,
but you and he will both be happier if you find someone who actually is
patient, and willing to help instead of win. Once you're up to a level
of play you're satisfied with, you can play some more with your current
partner.
--
Cheers,
Alan (San Jose, California, USA)
John Hall
OP's) current one doesn't have the ideal temperament to partner a
near-beginner?
--
John Hall "[It was] so steep that at intervals the street broke into steps,
like a person breaking into giggles or hiccups, and then resumed
its sober climb, until it had another fit of steps."
Ursula K Le Guin "The Beginning Place"
boblipton
I've been playing for almost forty years and there are times when I
lose it. Even the experts do it -- it's why they talk about
'momentum' during the Bermuda Bowl matches.
Bob
Bertel Lund Hansen
> I'm good, and others where I completely lose it. Last week's bridge
> night was a complete disaster, making stupid, idiotic mistakes and my
> partner got really angry at me. We're thinking about just not playing
> anymore but I do like the game.
It is a good idea to split up if playing together produces anger.
> When I make a bad bid or play a card
> wrong, I can feel the anger and it just makes me make more mistakes.
I group errors in two categories:
1. momentary slips of concentration/focus/ or total mental
absence. These are forgivable no matter how much they cost in the
score. They happen to me and everybody else.
2. deviations from the agreed system in situations where normal
and agreed bids would have described the hand perfectly -
followed up by persistent arguing that this and that made this
particular bid in this particular situation acceptable. These I
cannot forgive, and too many errors of this kind will make me
give up playing with this person as a steady partner.
But even when 2. happens, the situation is only worsened if I try
to discuss it at the table. Aggressions between two partners
always damage the results [1].
> Has this happened to anyone else?
Of course.
> How did you get past it?
I do not get past making errors. I try to learn from the ones I
make by revising the game afterwards and by discussing with my
partner in an atmosphere were we both just want to get smarter.
I am lucky because my clubs have computerdealt cards and display
all boards on the internet (after they are finished ...). This is
an invaluable help.
[1] Once early in my bridge career I played against two
experienced players. I and my partner fell into a disagreement,
and we asked the opponents about their oppinion:
Well, in this kind of situation we tend to side with the
person who is wrong. First of all because this has the best
chance of strengthening the disagreement, and second because
if this view wins, our opponents will adopt an inferiour
strategy. But you are beginners, so we wil be honest
with you.
And then they explained the situation.
PS. I hope they were only joking.
--
Bertel, Denmark
http://bridge.lundhansen.dk/
fja...@inet.hr
to win ? Are you progressing too slow ? How did he handle his partners
before ?
Anyway it would be wise to find another 'beginner' as partner where
you would both concentrate to follow basic rules and avoid silly
mistakes. If you go on BBO try to play as many boards as in your club
tournament and watch for unforced mistakes. Concentrate on count of
hands.
Play with your partner only once in several weeks so you both can
check progress. There is a great chance he is little frustrated and in
need of small change. Than you can go together from there or - even
better - you would find better suited partner for yourself.
Adam Lea
Yes it has happened to me, although not quite the same situation - I am an
intermediate and have occasionally partnered advanced/expert players. I had
the same problems in that if I didn't make the absolute 100% optimal bid all
the time I would get comments/complaints from across the table. It is
sometimes difficult to tell if they are trying to be helpful or are just
venting frustration. Ultimately I would not play with anyone who
continuously makes me feel bad, no matter how good they were.
What is the club like where you play? Are the people friendly and
understanding, or are they the sort for whom "bridge etiquette" doesn't
appear in their vocabulary. One of the things that annoys me is when
partner/myself makes an error giving the opponents a good score and the
opponents start gloating about it, or worse, turn to me and say "thanks for
the top"! Three hours of that would test the patience of even the most laid
back of people. What I am saying is that it may not be just you that is
frustrating your partner, but the environment in general.
I have partnered beginners/improvers in an attempt to help them along and to
be honest, I do wonder if a club duplicate is really the best place to help
a beginner improve. Beginners tend to make lots of errors spanning many
different areas of the game and explaining them all is just going to
overload them, yet it can be difficult to find one aspect to focus on.
I think you need to have a word with your partner about it as if he is
making you feel intimidated then you will just make more mistakes, which
will frustrate him further, and you end up with a positive feedback which
won't do either of you any good. In addition, if you have any ideas of what
you think is the best way to help a less experienced partner to improve let
me know, as I do this quite regularly.
Adam
Fred.
The first step in getting past a bad night at the table is to
recognize that everybody, however good they are, has them. Playing
bridge well takes a great deal of concentration and you aren't always
going to be able to deliver it. A philisophical view of it is that
you score much better over all if you can put all your mistakes in the
same session. It helps if you can find a way to laugh about with
parner.
In your case, as a beginner, you are supposed to make mistakes. Don't
take partner's frustration too seriously. That is what partner signed
up for in playing with a beginner. When I partner with a beginner and
I start getting angry at the beginner's mistakes, I believe I am the
one who should appologise. The time it will sneak up on me is when
the beginner starts doing well, and then regresses, as almost always
happens during the learning experience.
Since you're a beginner and you're trying hard, you're probably trying
to attend to too many things you've learned at the same time. Pick a
very short list of issues and work on them until they're fairly
automatic, before you go on to something else.
Finally, bridge is a social occasion. Take some time to greet and
appreciate the people around you. (Even if the'ye obnoxious, you can
appreciate how well they do it :-) ) This will help you relax and
play a better game.
Fred.
jonathan23
I started playing earlier this year after _no_ formal lessons (not that
I recommend that to anyone). When I didn't have a regular partner I
played with some people who would lose their temper because I couldn't
visualize as well as they could, or work out the right play at the
table. Sometimes I just had an off night and couldn't keep track of
enough of what was going on. And I thought about just giving up when
things turned unpleasant.
Eventually I found someone who was patient and willing to work with me.
I think that you need to do the same. People who can't handle a bit of
adversity aren't good partners for a beginner because they won't help
you to develop the skills or confidence you need to improve. Maybe an
instructor or director at your club can help you to find someone more
suitable.
--
- Jon Campbell
Ottawa CANADA
henry...@yahoo.com
Yes, it has. I can offer two small bits of advice.
First, decide how good you want to be and find someone willing to
accept that. Not everyone that plays bridge wants to be tournament
competitive every time out. You don't have to be tournament
competitive if you don't want to. Bridge offers plenty of scope for
pleasant social interaction, but if you play with someone who thinks
that every hand is life or death and you have a different view, things
are going to be uncomfortable.
Second, find a partner who understands that a bridge partnership has
its own dynamic. I remember a hand recently where I thought my
partner made a clear error. He held
---
KQxxxxx
xxx
xxx
NV at mps, and heard 1s (p) 2s to him. He passed instead of bidding
3h, I made a poor lead, and the result was a bottom.
I was very upset but tried to keep from saying anything until 3 rounds
later because I knew that no matter what I said in the spur of the
moment, it would have been wrong and our session would have been
destroyed.
I did say something later, in a (for me) relatively calm tone and
expressed the opinion that passing with that hand was a poor decision
at MPs, but was able to express that opinion without yelling.
If your partner becomes visibly upset and out of control when you make
a mistake, that act will ruin any partnership that he or she is in.
And that will also be true for you. My final piece of advice to you
is to learn how to exercise self-control during the game. It isn't
nearly as easy as it sounds, but it will pay dividends far above
knowing how to execute guard squeezes, trump coups, or intrafinesses.
Henrysun909
Andrew
Wow. You are a remarkably self-aware player, and you most definitely
have the right attitude!
Bridge is a tough game. There is a huge amount to learn and frankly it
just takes a long time for some things to sink in. My advice is the
following:
1. Your partnership with this person is probably done. It is tough to
recover once the emotional dynamic of anger and judgment has been
introduced. It's sort of like a relationship. When someone begins
treating you disrespectfully it is time put an end to that behavior
immediately or leave the relationship. Staying under those conditions
always works out badly.
2. If you are serious about the game, start reading! Mike Lawrence's
books are incredibly helpful and highly entertaining. You will learn a
lot from them.
3. If you partner wants to give you lessons at the table, politely
explain that you can't concentrate on the lessons when you will have
another hand to play starting in 2 minutes. Instead, take an hour
after the session for all the lessons.
4. Don't try to do too much. When your brain is full from one lesson,
it's time to stop even if there are a 20 more hands to cover. Half a
loaf is better than no loaf.
Andrew
Andrew
One more thing:
Mistakes are a part of the bridge playing experience. Being
emotionally prepared to handle them is the key. I tell myself things
like "there are no mistakes only learning opportunities." Yes, its
corny and artificial but it does make me feel better. Over time it has
helped me to reduce my self-judgment which was far more deadly than
anything a partner could throw at me. So I suggest that you:
1. Consider mistakes as learning opportunities instead of failures.
2. Judge the success of a session by how well you exploited the
learning opportunities, rather than by your final score.
3. Look for a partner who can appreciate learning opportunities.
4. Set firm limits with partners who can not.
Andrew
Stu G
There have been many good suggestions to you question, so while I
agree with almost all of them I won't repeat what they said.
First, find a partner and playing environment that does not belittle
or fluster you. Depending where you live there may be limited games
for novices and intermediates. Nothing is worse for your long-term
bridge enjoyment than losing morale.
Second, some clubs have mentoring programs where a better player
agrees to play with you for the purpose of you learning good
techniques and methods. A mentor will realize you are still learning
and bound to make many mistakes; he should take them with a grain of
salt (and a bad result), then give constructive pointers of how to
improve your game.
-Stu Goodgold
San Jose, CA
axm...@hotmail.com
Everyone is always learning. If you surround yourself with palookas
you will master being a palooka. Take heed.
To play well it is imperative to visualize where the spots are. This
is expedited by the language you adopt, the level of your mastery over
it, and how you judge to employ it. This is the root of your
perceived human relations difficulty.
Bridge is about solving hands, and communication is the vehicle that
expedites. And the needed level is mastery. In the dialog between
Spencer and Hepburn the straight forward gets through, the complex
gets through, the innuendo gets through, everything gets through. And
elsewhere there are 70 year olds running around whose communication
skills would baffle a teenager. They didn’t work hard at it. Gaining
the skill of bridge communication takes effort, pure and simple- so
make the effort.
Every bridge hand begins with you not knowing the location of 39
spots.
There is no better method of visualization the capacity of the cards
via bidding than that presented by S Garton Churchill. Mastery of the
principles that he enumerates will prove useful regardless of the
bidding method that you undertake.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out what card to play-
once you know where the cards are. When I first started playing I
kibitzed Jan Janitschke and there was a hand where the diamonds were
A975 opposite J86 that I was sure could make 6D [the only makeable
slam]- with KQx offside no less. I got the hand record after the
session and even for me it took but fifteen minutes of trial and error
to work it out. The moral is to get the information and then use it
<g>.
If you want a shortcut to the head of the class then read, and, play
[it takes a couple months] Play of the Hand by Watson a half dozen
times.
godspeed
axman
Bridge NewB
appreciate them. My partner is my "life partner" as well... He is
very patient but also extremely competitive, and he was appalled at my
bidding. As one responder mentioned, I was doing well but then
totally regressed.
I hope our bridge partnership isn't over because I really love having
this in common with him - but not after last Tuesday. He doesn't
expect perfection but wants to be able to rely on my bidding and
that's what I really stunk at. So, as someone suggested, perhaps I
need to really read and practice bidding, etc.
Our club is very supportive with very nice people. Everyone who
played at the table could see how irritated he was and how tense the
situation was - some people who came through the second round tried to
help by pointing out something they saw me do like under ruff myself
or ruff when I didn't need to - or they would talk about how hard it
is as a beginner but that practicing and sticking with it were the
keys. My partner said it was a waste of time because it was as though
I'd forgotten everything I'd learned in six months. And - seriously -
he was right. I was awful and then flustered and to tell you the
truth, really nervous about bidding what I knew needed to be bid
becasue then I'd have to play the hand out and I was really afraid of
doing that wrong and irritating him more.
So maybe it is just back to the drawing board, finding a mentor,
taking a break, reading up.
Thank you to everyone who's responded - you all have encouraged me a
lot and I truly appreciate it. :)
Palooka
>
> If you surround yourself with palookas
> you will master being a palooka. Take heed.
>
Palooka
Raija D
"Bridge NewB" <bridge...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1bdab6b1-fba4-4d61...@a10g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
========
Considering how your life partner treated you at the bridge table, it might
be best to drop him both as bridge partner and as life partner. Definitely
drop him as bridge partner unless he somehow gets a divine revelation to
apologize to you for having treated you badly (this will happen when cows
have wings...). Just don't become one of the local laughingstock couples
who insist on playing together while all it yields is frustration,
criticism, maybe arguing, and hurt feelings that won't be left at the club
when the game is over.
All the best,
Raija
Frisbieinstein
>
> ========
< Considering how your life partner treated you at the bridge table,
it might
< be best to drop him both as bridge partner and as life partner.
The world is full of bad advice.
John Hall
<07a5deb5-6728-40e3...@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
The second part does seem a bit extreme. But for couples to also be
partners at bridge, though natural, often seems to turn out badly,
especially when one is a much better player than the other. If you've
had a heated row with your bridge partner, but won't be seeing them till
the next duplicate in a week's time, there's a chance for you both to
cool down. But if it's your life partner, there's a real risk of your
bridge disagreements souring your whole relationship.
So I'd suggest considering whether you should split up at the bridge
table, if you don't want to risk endangering your wider partnership.
Bill Jacobs
> I completely understand because I'm frustrated with myself.
>
> Thanks for your help.
It's like golf. An irritating, frustrating and pointless game that's
impossible to perfect.
I don't know why we keep playing it.
To be honest, you need to get a game with a partner at your own level - eg
someone from the beginner class you just completed.
You'll discover that over time, you will make fewer mistakes. Actually,
what will happen is that you will keep making mistakes at about the same
frequency, but they will gradually become more advanced mistakes.
The analogy with golf stands: you won't be having air-swings, you will just
be slicing into the trees. After a year or two, you will be merely hooking
into the rough. In a decade's time, you will never have more than 3 putts
per hole.
Cheers ... Bill
Frisbieinstein
My advice: sign up for dance lessons with your spouse. Usually the
man is the klutz and you can be the patient, understanding one.
Fred.
> In article
> <07a5deb5-6728-40e3-bb4f-6ea901dc3...@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
Like so many things, I think it depends. If the better player has
trouble putting aside the drive to win to look at the other's progress
realisitcally and to take their feelings into consideration, maybe
there is something they need to work on in the wider relationship.
Getting away from the biidge table may facilitate a solution without
being one in itself. On the other hand, if they acknowledge that they
have a problem, they may be able to solve the problem at the bridge
table and expand the solution into their wider realtionship.
Fred.
jonathan23
> Thanks so much to everyone for all of your responses. I truly
> appreciate them. My partner is my "life partner" as well... He is
> very patient but also extremely competitive, and he was appalled at my
> bidding. As one responder mentioned, I was doing well but then
> totally regressed.
OK, you didn't mention this before. That does change the landscape a
little. Still, his behaviour is unwarranted and I think you deserve an
apology.
>
> I hope our bridge partnership isn't over because I really love having
> this in common with him - but not after last Tuesday. He doesn't
> expect perfection but wants to be able to rely on my bidding and
> that's what I really stunk at. So, as someone suggested, perhaps I
> need to really read and practice bidding, etc.
Reading and practicing are essential to improvement. If you have
trouble bidding, I strongly recommend that you keep your bidding as
_basic_ as possible: very few conventions and work on understanding
what the natural bids mean. When you have that down, you can introduce
conventions gradually and learn how to use them.
>
> Our club is very supportive with very nice people. Everyone who
> played at the table could see how irritated he was and how tense the
> situation was - some people who came through the second round tried to
> help by pointing out something they saw me do like under ruff myself
> or ruff when I didn't need to - or they would talk about how hard it
> is as a beginner but that practicing and sticking with it were the
> keys. My partner said it was a waste of time because it was as though
> I'd forgotten everything I'd learned in six months. And - seriously -
> he was right. I was awful and then flustered and to tell you the
> truth, really nervous about bidding what I knew needed to be bid
> becasue then I'd have to play the hand out and I was really afraid of
> doing that wrong and irritating him more.
It's good that the people at your club are nice. I'm sure the other
players at your table were very uncomfortable with the situation and
tried to calm the waters.
That remark about "waste of time" merits a sincere apology to you,
possibly accompanied by flowers.
I see married couples playing bridge together who _shouldn't_ and I'd
never want to be one half of one of those couples. My significant
other doesn't play bridge and likely never will, but if she tried I
would _never_ treat her that way.
>
> So maybe it is just back to the drawing board, finding a mentor,
> taking a break, reading up.
I stand by the "find a more suitable partner" advice that I and many
others have given. You and your life partner can go to your bridge
club together and play with different bridge partners who are better
suited to your skill levels and temperaments. I second the advice Stu
G gave about a mentor.
>
> Thank you to everyone who's responded - you all have encouraged me a
> lot and I truly appreciate it. :)
If you keep at it, you will get better. The things that are
"automatic" to a good player will start to come to you. It usually
happens slowly, as you learn to "read" the cards. And to do that, you
need to be able to play calmly and thoughtfully.
Andrew
Good advice :-)
Andrew
Andrew
> Thanks so much to everyone for all of your responses. I truly
> appreciate them. My partner is my "life partner" as well... He is
> very patient but also extremely competitive, and he was appalled at my
> bidding. As one responder mentioned, I was doing well but then
> totally regressed.
>
> I hope our bridge partnership isn't over because I really love having
> this in common with him - but not after last Tuesday. He doesn't
> expect perfection but wants to be able to rely on my bidding
That is a normal desire on his part. However he has to realize that at
your current level his wish represents an unrealistic expectation on
you. As a beginner many situations are not routine for you and your
mental stamina is limited so you are more likely to make errors in
situations where you should "know" the right thing to do.
Since he is your life partner, I assume that in other regards he is a
caring and good person who values your relationship. You and he should
discuss what happened on Tuesday. You need to make it clear that:
* You enjoy playing with him, however his behavior at the game went
far beyond your limit
* You are trying your best to improve and value his guidance,
nonetheless, he should expect that in future there will be days when
your bridge play will disappoint him
* You want better behavior from him in future when this happens
* If he can not regulate his behavior, then your bridge partnership
will end
> and that's what I really stunk at. So, as someone suggested, perhaps I
> need to really read and practice bidding, etc.
You are entitled to enjoy this game no matter how well or poorly you
play. Internalizing that message is more important than any
improvement to your skills. That being said, you and he will enjoy the
game more if you work on basic bidding skills. You don't need a lot of
fancy conventions, but I do suggest you learn:
1. which auctions are and are not forcing
2. which doubles are for penalty and which are for takeout
3. Which bids are conventional and not natural
> Our club is very supportive with very nice people. Everyone who
> played at the table could see how irritated he was and how tense the
> situation was - some people who came through the second round tried to
> help by pointing out something they saw me do like under ruff myself
> or ruff when I didn't need to - or they would talk about how hard it
> is as a beginner but that practicing and sticking with it were the
> keys. My partner said it was a waste of time because it was as though
> I'd forgotten everything I'd learned in six months.
He owes you an apology.
> And - seriously - he was right.
Does not matter. Speaking that way to you was disrespectful and
hurtful. When you hurt someone's feelings over a game you owe an
apology no matter how "justified" your anger.
> I was awful and then flustered and to tell you the
> truth, really nervous about bidding what I knew needed to be bid
> becasue then I'd have to play the hand out and I was really afraid of
> doing that wrong and irritating him more.
You were walking on eggshells and that was making you play worse since
the worry of offending him undermined your ability to think. I
remember how awful that felt to me when I was in that position.
Extricate yourself from that position now, by setting a clear limit
with him before your next game. It won't get better unless you act
assertively.
> So maybe it is just back to the drawing board, finding a mentor,
> taking a break, reading up.
If you and he can discuss it rationally and he can acknowledge his
mistake in behaving as he did, then perhaps not. However, most people
are just too competitive to fully control their behavior. If he is one
of these people, then a break from playing together is a good idea.
Andrew
Stu G
As an experience player whose wife is in a similar position to you, I
can vouch for how frustrating it can get. It does take enormous
patience to play as a couple when there is a huge disparity of skill
(I have 1000 times more masterpoints than my wife, and even that may
overstate her skill level.... and mine too -:).
In our situation, my wife took organized lessons weekly in a bridge
class. I spent lots of time at the kitchen table going over bidding
and play after the class. But she got too busy with work to get into
bridge on a regular basis.
Now she plays rarely, only at a special social event at the bridge
club or on a cruise. For the social events, I try to find her a
novice partner so they can play in the I/N game - she plays too slowly
for the open section and it is not very fair to the open players.
The trouble with playing with a life partner is that familiarity gets
in the way of courtesy. You say things that are on your mind to your
LP that you wouldn't say out loud to anyone else. It is best to avoid
the situation by playing with those at your level instead.
Another pet theory of mine is that some people have innate card sense
and others do not. The former find it much easier to learn bridge
skills than do the latter. Either can usually become a reasonable
bridge player, but the ones who lack the innate card sense have to
work much harder and longer to get there. It could be your LP's innate
card sense is much higher than yours, so he can't relate to your
struggles to improve.
Michael Angelo Ravera
You said a lot and I agree with most of it. My only issue with
anything that you have said is about "card sense". Maybe you are just
using the term in a different way than I would. It is my contention
that people who are good at applying logic, psychology, and intuition
tend to pick up bridge quickly. This is one reason that I find Bridge
Clubs filled with Lawyers, Doctors, Engineers, and Salespeople and
much less with people who make a living by the sweat of their brows.
There is very little in Bridge that is rote or repetitive. There are
recurring themes certainly, but it's not like vacuuming a floor or
filling a beer glass or pounding a nail into a wall. I'm sure that
there are people whose brains are underutilized in those fields who
are good at one or more of the applied areas that I mentioned earlier
will make good Bridge players, but they have to learn all three areas.
For them, Bridge is a way to make sure that their minds have something
to do rather than a fun way to use skills that they already use (in
perhaps less fun ways) in their professions.
My favorite thing about the game is that Men are wired for logic and
can learn intuition. Women are wired for intuition and can learn
logic. You need BOTH to play well.
One thing that could go wrong in playing with a Bridge partner who is
also a Life Partner (especially, if they are of opposite sexes), is
that a man might assume logic is built into the woman's mind when it
isn't! A woman might assume that the intuition is built into a man's
mind when it isn't. That which isn't innate must be cultivated or even
planted fresh. A man might see a woman's logic mistakes as so basic as
to be frustrating. Why should a woman be expected to pick up logic as
though innate when it isn't innate and she so rarely has to use it in
the rest of the relationship? I'm sure that the opposite is true of
good women players introducing their husbands to Bridge, although I
haven't spoken to my directing partner about this particular issue.
One side benefit that comes from playing Bridge with your life partner
is that you both become better at the acquired skill that Bridge
teaches. After a while, she can puzzle out more difficult logic
problems. He can intuite a few more situations. That has got to be a
good thing!
Mark Brader
> this in common with him - but not after last Tuesday. He doesn't
Then you need to have this conversation with him. It's a game -- while
there may be moments of anguish, it's supposed to be fun for both of you.
If he's your life partner, he needs to respect that. Some couples
prefer the solution that they both play bridge but not as partners --
that's a decision for the two of you.
For many people it's a good policy to avoid discussing problems during
the session. If one of you did something questionable and you got a
bad score, don't dwell on it; just see if you can play the next board
perfectly and make it up with a good score. Feel free to talk about
it afterwards, when there's been time to cool down, but not at the time.
--
Mark Brader | "The conversation never became heated, which would
Toronto | have been difficult in any argument where there
m...@vex.net | is a built-in cooling-down period between any
| remark and its answer." --Hal Clement, STAR LIGHT
My text in this article is in the public domain.
jackie...@gmail.com
> On Nov 21, 6:33 am, Bridge Newbie <bridgenew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I am a new beginner - just got out of beginner classes with no
> > previous "card playing" experience - none. My partner played for 3-4
> > years about 5 years ago and he was very good. I have moments where
> > I'm good, and others where I completely lose it. Last week's bridge
> > night was a complete disaster, making stupid, idiotic mistakes and my
> > partner got really angry at me. We're thinking about just not playing
> > anymore but I do like the game. When I make a bad bid or play a card
> > wrong, I can feel the anger and it just makes me make more mistakes.
>
> > Has this happened to anyone else? How did you get past it? My
> > partner has been extremely patient with my questions but obviously
> > it's not sinking in enough and now he's just getting frustrated, which
> > I completely understand because I'm frustrated with myself.
>
> > Thanks for your help.
>
> it never ends, that's the beauty.
>
> B.R.
First of all, you should not play with anyone who get angry at you.
Part of learning is learning from mistakes.
While it is easier to learn by playing with or against better players,
it can be frustrating, and isn't fro everyone.
You my prefer to slow down by playing in novice games.
Otherwise choose to play with someone who is interested in your
progress not in punishing you for his shortcomings.
Try to play only a few conventions, think befor you bid, and play. Try
to plan your bid (and play) before it is your turn. In that way you
will not frustation others with "huddles" ir hesitations, there by
putting pressure on your partner.
Good luck, and find a better partner - not necessarily a more
accomplished player.
Spudmato
Fred.
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think in taking the view that men tend to be inherently logical and
women inherently intuitive you are falling into an unfortunate
stereotype. I am speaking as a man with a learning style which which
is about 95th percentile in the right-brained direction whose wife and
daughter both have fine analytical minds. Interestingly enough, I was
encouraged to pursue mathematics, while they, with superior aptitude
(going by the GRE math aptitude percentile), were actively
discouraged.
I'm not saying any of us were permanently hurt by this nonsense. I
think we have all found careers where we are reasonably happy and
sucessful. But, I fear that there are people who are hurt. For
instance, I've worked with two women, both fine electrical engineers,
who went through school at abouth the same time I did, and came out
with the way they relate to people profoundly affected by the sexual
harassment they experienced in engineering school. I think many of
the students and professors felt they didn't belong there because they
felt, as you expressed, women weren't wired for logic.
Fred.
Derek Broughton
> I am a new beginner - just got out of beginner classes with no
> previous "card playing" experience - none. My partner played for 3-4
> years about 5 years ago and he was very good. I have moments where
> I'm good, and others where I completely lose it. Last week's bridge
> night was a complete disaster, making stupid, idiotic mistakes and my
> partner got really angry at me.
Rule #1, refuse to play with him. I've been there. It took me close to a
year to get transfers right. I can't imagine why, they're so darn simple,
but it happened. Partner was extremely frustrated, but hung in there. It
was worth it (OK, so _I_ say - most days I think she'd agree :-) ). But
there's never any need to play bridge with people who get angry at you.
> We're thinking about just not playing
> anymore but I do like the game. When I make a bad bid or play a card
> wrong, I can feel the anger and it just makes me make more mistakes.
Of course it does.
>
> Has this happened to anyone else? How did you get past it?
We stopped playing for about 15 years... I regret it, but my usual partner
is my wife, and we have few enough hobbies in common, I refused to submit to
abuse, but also refused to arrange my life so that she could play bridge
without me.
> My partner has been extremely patient with my questions
Not patient enough! The fault is all his.
--
derek
Derek Broughton
> I hope our bridge partnership isn't over because I really love having
> this in common with him - but not after last Tuesday. He doesn't
> expect perfection but wants to be able to rely on my bidding and
> that's what I really stunk at. So, as someone suggested, perhaps I
> need to really read and practice bidding, etc.
he's asking the impossible! (unless you're a budding Meckwell)
probably the best pair in our city _frequently_ have bidding
misunderstandings. What makes them so good is that (a) they can play the
spots off the cards, and (b) they recognize faster than most of us when they
_have_ had a misunderstanding.
Absolutely you need to read and practice, but don't just go to a Newcomer's
shuffle-and-play night for your practice, because your partner won't be any
more reliable than you!
--
derek
Derek Broughton
True. This ain't it.
--
derek
Derek Broughton
>> Another pet theory of mine is that some people have innate card sense
>> and others do not. The former find it much easier to learn bridge
>> skills than do the latter. Either can usually become a reasonable
>> bridge player, but the ones who lack the innate card sense have to
>> work much harder and longer to get there. It could be your LP's innate
>> card sense is much higher than yours, so he can't relate to your
>> struggles to improve.
>
> You said a lot and I agree with most of it. My only issue with
> anything that you have said is about "card sense".
I know quite a few bridge players with not a hint of card sense.
> My favorite thing about the game is that Men are wired for logic and
> can learn intuition. Women are wired for intuition and can learn
> logic. You need BOTH to play well.
>
> One thing that could go wrong in playing with a Bridge partner who is
> also a Life Partner (especially, if they are of opposite sexes), is
> that a man might assume logic is built into the woman's mind when it
> isn't!
What sexist crap. Women are not "not wired" for logic. It may be trained
out of most of them, but most of the best logicians I've known are women.
My wife sees logic in bridge, where I only see confusion.
--
derek
castigamatti
What's this all about?
The origin of species?
lol
B.R.
Bridge NewB
few things:
1) First thing the next morning, the first words out of my partner's
mouth were: "I'm sorry about last night. I shouldn't have been mean
to you."
2) After reading everyone's responses, I had a conversation with him
to ask how we would proceed. He said that I should continue going to
bridge (calling the Bridge Mistress the night before and ask her for
an understanding partner), playing lots of hands on the program we
have on the computer, reading books, etc. After I've improved, we can
try it again or we can maybe just go to bridge but - as others have
suggested - have different partners.
I definitely want a "permanent" partner, not to switch around every
week because it seems like when you learn each others' bridge style it
helps quite a bit.
It may be that we don't play together each week - but that we just go
to class and maybe play together some times. I'm not sure - but I do
appreciate everybody's advice. You have NO IDEA how much all of your
positive and supportive comments have meant to me. I thought I was
all alone in my partner mis-matched-ness.
Nancy
Bridge NewB
tell everyone how supported and encouraged I feel.
A few updates:
1) The morning after the event, the first words out of his mouth as
he came to me for a cuddle were "I'm sorry about last night, I
shouldn't have been mean to you."
2) We've spoken about our strategy and he wants me to keep going to
bridge, call the bridge mistress the night before and get a patient
experienced player to play with, play lots of bridge on the computer,
read books, learn at my own pace, and then perhaps we can play
together again? But - even if we can't, we can keep going to bridge
and maybe just play with other partners.
Bottom line, we still have the game in common and would be fine
playing in non-scored situations.
So this is our strategy. Thanks again so much to everyone for all of
your advice and support. You really have no idea how much you've all
helped me.
Bridge NewB
Mark Brader
> Sorry for the double post! I thought the other one hadn't posted!
That's all right, adding the cuddle makes it much better. :-)
--
Mark Brader | "Of course, the most important part of making the
Toronto | proposal something special for both of you is
m...@vex.net | addressing it to the right person." --Mara Chibnik
Michael Angelo Ravera
I didn't say that women can't learn logic or that, even in most cases,
they weren't wired for it. What I said was that a man might *ASSUME*
that it was wired in when, in fact, it has to be taught. If you will
look closely, I also said that women might have the same problem with
men on intuition.
It's not sexist crap! Sexist would be to ignore the differences and to
assume that women can never do certain things simply because they
can't learn it the way that men do (or more to the point, the way that
some men teach it!).
To the OP: You should be alert to the possibility that you hooked up
with the world's greatest guy, but who isn't necessarily the world's
greatest bridge teacher!
Derek Broughton
> On Nov 22, 6:49 pm, Derek Broughton <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>> Michael Angelo Ravera wrote:
>> > My favorite thing about the game is that Men are wired for logic and
>> > can learn intuition. Women are wired for intuition and can learn
>> > logic. You need BOTH to play well.
>>
>> > One thing that could go wrong in playing with a Bridge partner who is
>> > also a Life Partner (especially, if they are of opposite sexes), is
>> > that a man might assume logic is built into the woman's mind when it
>> > isn't!
>>
>> What sexist crap. Women are not "not wired" for logic. It may be
>> trained out of most of them, but most of the best logicians I've known
>> are women. My wife sees logic in bridge, where I only see confusion.
>
> I didn't say that women can't learn logic or that, even in most cases,
> they weren't wired for it.
It's right there: "Women are wired for intuition and can learn logic".
_That_ is sexist crap. Women are not _wired_ for intuition.
>
> It's not sexist crap! Sexist would be to ignore the differences and to
> assume that women can never do certain things simply because they
> can't learn it the way that men do (or more to the point, the way that
> some men teach it!).
Brains tend to be wired in different ways, and due to the way specific
hormones focus development, there are gender _biases_, but that is not at
all the same as saying that "Women are wired for intuition".
--
derek
Fred.
>
> - Show quoted text -
Did I carry on too much? _Inherit the Wind_ is one of my favorite
movies. :-)
While the stereotype is largely used by men to maintain their
traditonal turf, I genuinely believe it is seriously damaging to both
men and women. At the same time, I thought that Michael Angelo
Ravera was sincere, and attempting to be constructive. I wanted to
address his viewpoint in kind.
Fred.
Raija D
"Fred." <ghrno-...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:630c1002-cfde-4c38...@h2g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
Fred.
========
I also thought he was trying to be sincere and constructive. However, that
is _not_ how his message actually reads, and comes across to me.
Raija
Raija
castigamatti
Girls are mostly prettier than men.
:-)
B.R.
Stu G
wrote:
My wife is a psychotherapist and has a PhD in sociology, so she has
the credentials you mention. Just the same she doesn't have decent
card sense. I am not sure why (would take a psychologist to analyze
this one!), but maybe it's because she didn't play many card games as
a child. Either children develop card sense by playing card games
often, or conversely, they play card games because they have an innate
card sense and do well at cards. Like foreign languages, it is much
harder to develop skill in cards if you hadn't been exposed as a
child. It would be interesting to see if there have been any
scientific studies on this subject.
-Stu Goodgold
San Jose, CA
Michael Angelo Ravera
If you've ever done the experiment that shows that you can transmit an
electrical current across a vat of salty water and been zapped on the
other end, I don't think that you would call this phenomenon a
"locational bias". Current may not quite travel as quickly across an
ionized solution, but it gets there just as surely as if you had run a
wire.
Derek Broughton
How on earth that's relevant, I don't know. Clearly at least one of us,
despite being male, is not wired for logic. I _do_ know that I have enough
intuition not to hold onto a wire dipped into an ionized solution with a
power source at the other side of the vat, and logic doesn't need to enter
the equation.
If you're actually trying to say that just because the wiring's different
doesn't mean it doesn't work "as well", that's also irrelevant. My
objection is not to a suggestion that one kind of brain wiring is "better",
it's to any suggestion that women's brains work one way, and men's another.
It's a continuum - and while you might find one end of the continuum has a
preponderance of men, and the other of women, making it an either/or
statement, as you did, is wrong.
--
derek
Michael Angelo Ravera
> Michael Angelo Ravera wrote:
> > On Nov 23, 5:54 am, Derek Broughton <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> >> Brains tend to be wired in different ways, and due to the way specific
> >> hormones focus development, there are gender _biases_, but that is not at
> >> all the same as saying that "Women are wired for intuition".
>
> > If you've ever done the experiment that shows that you can transmit an
> > electrical current across a vat of salty water and been zapped on the
> > other end, I don't think that you would call this phenomenon a
> > "locational bias". Current may not quite travel as quickly across an
> > ionized solution, but it gets there just as surely as if you had run a
> > wire.
>
> How on earth that's relevant, I don't know. Clearly at least one of us,
> despite being male, is not wired for logic. I _do_ know that I have enough
> intuition not to hold onto a wire dipped into an ionized solution with a
> power source at the other side of the vat, and logic doesn't need to enter
> the equation.
What I am was trying to say, in an obtuse way, is that it didn't
matter whether is was hard wiring ("running a wire directly") or the
effect of hormones ("a vat of ionized solution"), the result gets
there the same way. I don't know any transgendered people all that
well (I do know one or two, including one who plays Bridge in Northern
California), so I don't know whether it is the hormone dominance or
the chromosonal differences that make the brains of the sexes behave
differently. Some of these differences are buried in billions of years
of evolution. Some, doubtless, are environmental conditioning (which,
if it is seriously drummed in starting from birth might as well be
hardwired).
>
> If you're actually trying to say that just because the wiring's different
> doesn't mean it doesn't work "as well", that's also irrelevant. My
> objection is not to a suggestion that one kind of brain wiring is "better",
> it's to any suggestion that women's brains work one way, and men's another.
> It's a continuum - and while you might find one end of the continuum has a
> preponderance of men, and the other of women, making it an either/or
> statement, as you did, is wrong.
Taking the discussion back to Bridge, sort of: If I had made the
statement: "Balanced 10-counts aren't openers", you'd not have
attacked it at all because we know that in Bridge as in life, there
are few, if any, absolutes. What if I had a (6322) hand? What about if
I'm (5431)? What if opponents are known to be bad at overcalling? What
if you are looking for a swing late in a close match? What if you play
a 10-12 1NT opener?
However, it is pointless to try to argue with you. You have stated
that you don't possess the ability of logic. So, either you are
reacting emotionally and intutively to my assertions and will never be
swayed by logical aregument or you have misstated your abilities.
Basically, either you are lying or won't be convinced no matter how
logical the argument. There doesn't seem to be much point.
dranon
<de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>My
>objection is not to a suggestion that one kind of brain wiring is "better",
>it's to any suggestion that women's brains work one way, and men's another.
Then you ignore all science. Bully for you.
Frisbieinstein
>
>
> My wife is a psychotherapist and has a PhD in sociology, so she has
> the credentials you mention. Just the same she doesn't have decent
> card sense. I am not sure why (would take a psychologist to analyze
> this one!), but maybe it's because she didn't play many card games as
> a child. Either children develop card sense by playing card games
> often, or conversely, they play card games because they have an innate
> card sense and do well at cards. Like foreign languages, it is much
> harder to develop skill in cards if you hadn't been exposed as a
> child. It would be interesting to see if there have been any
> scientific studies on this subject.
>
> -Stu Goodgold
> San Jose, CA
>
John Nash, "Nobel" prize winner in economics and a famous
mathematician, had no card sense. He was terrible at bridge and could
not get simple things.
Derek Broughton
> However, it is pointless to try to argue with you. You have stated
> that you don't possess the ability of logic.
And you don't have the ability to read. I said _one_ of us was short on
logic.
> Basically, either you are lying or won't be convinced no matter how
> logical the argument. There doesn't seem to be much point.
No, there never is a point when you have to resort to that sort of argument.
--
derek
Derek Broughton
You are such an ass. Give me citations. Send them by email, because you're
back in the newsgroup killfile. Not that it matters, because you'll never
find anything that disagrees with what I said.
--
derek
dranon
<de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>dranon wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:45:24 -0400, Derek Broughton
>> <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>My
>>>objection is not to a suggestion that one kind of brain wiring is
>>>"better", it's to any suggestion that women's brains work one way, and
>>>men's another.
>>
>> Then you ignore all science. Bully for you.
>
>You are such an ass. Give me citations. Send them by email, because you're
>back in the newsgroup killfile. Not that it matters, because you'll never
>find anything that disagrees with what I said.
Whether I'm an ass or not is besides the point. I won't do your
legwork for you. And I certainly won't bother to send you an email.
If you post here, you get a reply here.
If a toy manufacturer thought the way you do it wouldn't stay in
business for long. For you to ignore the fact that the sexes are
wired differently is beyond comprehension.
Stu G
>
> - Show quoted text -
Interesting. I did not know or even suspect that. One would think he
was a master of mentally oriented games, having won the Nobel Prize
for developing the area of game theory (more mathematics than
economics, but there are no Nobel prizes for mathematicians.) He did,
of course, have severe mental imbalances.
dranon
wrote:
OK, I lied. I did a quick search and came up with oodles of cites.
Even enough for the dolt Derek to potentially comprehend.
Here's a good one:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080229171609.htm
ScienceDaily (Mar. 3, 2008) � What was once speculation is now being
confirmed by scientists: the brains of women and men are different in
more ways than one. Discoveries by scientists over the past 10 years
have elucidated biological sex differences in brain structure,
chemistry and function. �These variations occur throughout the brain,
in regions involved in language, memory, emotion, vision, hearing and
navigation,� explains Larry Cahill, Ph.D., an associate professor in
the Department of Neurobiology and Behavior at the University of
California, Irvine.
To think otherwise is positively Victorian.
Frisbieinstein
I know quite a few people who have rejected all science and simply
believe whatever pleases them.
I have a feeling that this is a majority view. Close to it, certainly.
Derek Broughton
> On Nov 25, 8:58 am, dranon <dra...@dranon.invalid.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:17:06 -0800, dranon <dra...@dranon.invalid.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:34:53 -0400, Derek Broughton
>> ><de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >>dranon wrote:
>>
>> >>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:45:24 -0400, Derek Broughton
>> >>> <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>My
>> >>>>objection is not to a suggestion that one kind of brain wiring is
>> >>>>"better", it's to any suggestion that women's brains work one way,
>> >>>>and men's another.
>>
>> >>> Then you ignore all science. Bully for you.
>>
>> >Whether I'm an ass or not is besides the point. I won't do your
>> >legwork for you. And I certainly won't bother to send you an email.
>> >If you post here, you get a reply here.
Fine, but you need to get someone like Einstein to repost it for you then.
>>
>> >If a toy manufacturer thought the way you do it wouldn't stay in
>> >business for long. For you to ignore the fact that the sexes are
>> >wired differently is beyond comprehension.
I don't ignore it. I object to silly generalizations that say women are one
way and men another. The science doesn't show that. It shows women are
biased to one end of a spectrum and men to the other, which is vastly
different.
>> OK, I lied. I did a quick search and came up with oodles of cites.
>> Even enough for the dolt Derek to potentially comprehend.
>>
>> Here's a good
one:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080229171609.htm
>>
>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080229171609.htm
Not really. The only quantifiable observation there says, of Alzheimer's,
"up to 90 percent of older men show this pathology, whereas it is found in
only 8-10 percent of age-matched women.”. IE, men are more _likely_ to have
it, but it's not exclusive. Find me even ONE thing that shows all men's
brains are distinctly different from women's in any way.
>>
>> To think otherwise is positively Victorian.
I'm not the Victorian here. Victorians accepted as given that Men and Women
were completely different.
>
> I know quite a few people who have rejected all science and simply
> believe whatever pleases them.
>
> I have a feeling that this is a majority view. Close to it, certainly.
Almost certainly true, but I'm not one of them. Seems I'm tilting at
windmills here, though.
--
derek
Andrew
Ed Spanier, a world famous mathematician I knew, explained why his
bridge game did not match his mathematics achievements: Math is not a
timed event. In mathematics you can make as many mistakes as you like--
you just don't publish them.
Andrew
Rob Morris
> Whether I'm an ass or not is besides the point. I won't do your
> legwork for you. And I certainly won't bother to send you an email.
> If you post here, you get a reply here.
>
> If a toy manufacturer thought the way you do it wouldn't stay in
> business for long. For you to ignore the fact that the sexes are
> wired differently is beyond comprehension.
But it isn't wiring. An AC motor is wired differently to a DC motor, and
you can look at them and tell which is which. Humans are complex beings
and there are plenty of women who, if you want to put it this way, think
like men, men who think like women, and everything in between. They may
be a minority, but they exist.
It's a classic mistake to take something that's true on frequency
grounds, and apply it to every case. This tendency is the cause of much
lack of understanding in the world, even bigotry and prejudice. And it
makes it impossible to discuss any sort of human variation without
people drawing false conclusions.
This little flamewar started with Michael Angelo Ravera's comment,
beginning, "Men are wired for logic and can learn intuition. Women are
wired for intuition and can learn logic. You need BOTH to play well."
This doesn't strike me as an inflammatory statement, but in the context
of a woman asking about playing with her significant other, Derek was
entitled to raise a small objection. It may well be true in a
statistical sense, but any individual woman might be 'wired' for logic,
intuition, both or neither.
General differences between men and women might be relevant for, say,
deciding how to teach the game to large numbers of them, but it's not
much use in giving advice to an individual person. 'You're a woman, so
you are wired for intuition' would, as well as being patronising, not
necessarily be true.
--
Rob Morris
arr emm four four five (at) cam dot ac dot uk
dranon
<de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>I don't ignore it. I object to silly generalizations that say women are one
>way and men another. The science doesn't show that. It shows women are
>biased to one end of a spectrum and men to the other, which is vastly
>different.
>
>>> OK, I lied. I did a quick search and came up with oodles of cites.
>>> Even enough for the dolt Derek to potentially comprehend.
>>>
>>> Here's a good
>one:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080229171609.htm
>>>
>>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080229171609.htm
>
>Not really. The only quantifiable observation there says, of Alzheimer's,
>"up to 90 percent of older men show this pathology, whereas it is found in
>only 8-10 percent of age-matched women.�. IE, men are more _likely_ to have
>it, but it's not exclusive. Find me even ONE thing that shows all men's
>brains are distinctly different from women's in any way.
But what you disagreed with essentially is exactly what you have now
stated.
Nobody was saying that women have no ability to understand and process
the logical, merely that their brains are not wired in the same way
that men's are and are therefore not as likely to base decisions on
that which is purely logical. Same in reverse for men, in that they
are not as likely as women to base decisions on that which is
intuitive.
If you thought that what was meant was that women have no ability to
process logic and men have no ability to intuit, then you must think
of yourself as a member of the weaker ses.
>>> To think otherwise is positively Victorian.
>
>I'm not the Victorian here. Victorians accepted as given that Men and Women
>were completely different.
They held to their beliefs notwithstanding the overwhelming evidence
against them.
>> I know quite a few people who have rejected all science and simply
>> believe whatever pleases them.
>>
>> I have a feeling that this is a majority view. Close to it, certainly.
>
>Almost certainly true, but I'm not one of them. Seems I'm tilting at
>windmills here, though.
You are just a doddering fool, typing without thinking.
dranon
wrote:
Of course.
>General differences between men and women might be relevant for, say,
>deciding how to teach the game to large numbers of them, but it's not
>much use in giving advice to an individual person. 'You're a woman, so
>you are wired for intuition' would, as well as being patronising, not
>necessarily be true.
But the phrase is intended as "As a woman, you are much more likely to
be be wired such that your brain primarily looks to intuition for
decision making rather than logic." Speech is full of phrases which
convey nuanced meaning without forcing such things to be completely
iterated.
The phrase itself is more likely true than not, and to think that the
term "wired" means everybody without exception is to deny the essence
of being human.
We are "wired" for life spans that significantly exceed life
expectancy. We are "wired" for "fight or flight" but we overcome it,
significantly but not perfectly, thank goodness, with proper
sociological training.
But those who are quibbling in this argument would say that it is
incorrect to say we have long life spans that we are not realizing
simply because there are some who die early from cancer and that we
have successfully, through evolution, eliminated the fight or flight
reflex in most of our human interactions. Bull to both.
I guess there is a tipping point that would satisfy the political
correct. If a certain animal can run at a certain speed and all but
an Olympic sprinter can not, is it fair to say that mankind is not
wired to run faster than that animal? I would say yes and it appears
that Derek would say no.
Derek Broughton
> Ed Spanier, a world famous mathematician I knew, explained why his
> bridge game did not match his mathematics achievements: Math is not a
> timed event. In mathematics you can make as many mistakes as you like--
> you just don't publish them.
I love it. I'll have to remember that next time my wife is frustrated with
my game. We're both mathematicians.
--
derek
Stu G
>
> - Show quoted text -
Some do!
Adam Lea
>
> Not really. The only quantifiable observation there says, of
> Alzheimer's, "up to 90 percent of older men show this pathology,
> whereas it is found in only 8-10 percent of age-matched women.". IE,
> men are more _likely_ to have it, but it's not exclusive. Find me
> even ONE thing that shows all men's brains are distinctly different
> from women's in any way.
I may have missed it, but where has anyone stated that ALL men's brains are
distinctly different to womens?
There are differences on average in the way men and women think, that is a
scientific fact. This is not the same as claiming that there is no overlap
at all in the distributions. It is like stating that men on average are
taller than women; claiming you know a woman who is six foot four and is the
tallest person in your bridge club does not invalidate this.
Derek Broughton
> Derek Broughton wrote:
>>
>> Not really. The only quantifiable observation there says, of
>> Alzheimer's, "up to 90 percent of older men show this pathology,
>> whereas it is found in only 8-10 percent of age-matched women.". IE,
>> men are more _likely_ to have it, but it's not exclusive. Find me
>> even ONE thing that shows all men's brains are distinctly different
>> from women's in any way.
>
> I may have missed it, but where has anyone stated that ALL men's brains
> are distinctly different to womens?
That was my only objection to Michel Angelo's original comment: "Men are
wired for logic and can learn intuition. Women are wired for intuition and
can learn logic." This is patently not true (at least the "are wired
for..." part - I believe both can learn logic and intuition). He said later
that he didn't mean it as a blanket statement, but nevertheless, as written,
that's exactly what it is.
>
> There are differences on average in the way men and women think, that is a
> scientific fact.
Absolutely.
--
derek
Eric Leong
> I am a new beginner - just got out of beginner classes with no
> previous "card playing" experience - none. My partner played for 3-4
> years about 5 years ago and he was very good. I have moments where
> I'm good, and others where I completely lose it. Last week's bridge
> night was a complete disaster, making stupid, idiotic mistakes and my
> partner got really angry at me. We're thinking about just not playing
> anymore but I do like the game. When I make a bad bid or play a card
> wrong, I can feel the anger and it just makes me make more mistakes.
>
> Has this happened to anyone else? How did you get past it? My
> partner has been extremely patient with my questions but obviously
> it's not sinking in enough and now he's just getting frustrated, which
> I completely understand because I'm frustrated with myself.
>
> Thanks for your help.
If you want better results for your partner and yourself there are a
few actions you can do that
will improve your results instantly with having to gain more technical
knowledge.
These actions are:
1. Try to make partner declarer instead of yourself.
2. Avoid taking borderline initial actions.
3. When you are not sure what to do, construct and play for a specific
hand
that is consistent with the previous bidding and play up to now.
4. Trust your partner.
One situation where you are going to make mistakes is in declarer play
so if you can put partner as declarer you can avoid errors you would
make as declarer. So unless it is really obvious, you should strive to
make partner declarer.
Another situation where you can avoid partnership mistakes is in
taking initial partnership actions.
If you have a hand which is not mandatory for you to act just pass. If
you act now, you create a series of problems which you have to get
right. But given that you don't have the skill set, you are frequently
going to do something wrong. So don't put yourself in that kind of
situation. Further, you cut down on the opportunities for your
stronger but less than expert partner from making a mistake by avoid
doubtful initial actions.
Playing for something specific will really cut down on many of your
errors. When you have a problem construct a reasonable hand that is
consistent with what has happened already in the deal where you action
gains. By doing this you will avoid the "dumb" and "idiotic" actions
that cannot possibly gain.
Finally, when in doubt of what to do, just trust your partner. If it
is not obvious what to lead, lead your partner's suit. If your
partner gives you a high signal when you win the opening trick just
continue the suit. If your partner gives you a low signal just switch
to a different suit. If your partner leads a suit at the start or
middle of the hand just return his suit. If your partner is leading
trumps just return a trump if you get in. In short, if you don't know
what to do maybe partner doesn't.
As a rank beginner you are expected to make a lot of mistakes. But
most of your competition is going to be other beginners and weak
intermediate players. So all you have to do is cut down less mistakes
relative to the other players instead of being brilliant. So basically
your stategy is to avoid putting yourself in situations where you are
prone to make a mistake.
Eric Leong
Fred.
That's a good way to end debate.
Fred.
Dave Flower
I am teaching my wife, and, speaking as someone in this situation, I
would advise:
1) Never psyche
2) Remember to keep the bidding within what partner knows
3) Do not try to become declarer; just accept what happens on the
bidding. Dummy is the one hand who is unlikely to learn anything!
4) Congratulate partner when they play correctly; constructive
criticism is acceptable after the session (In my case, as my wife is
invariably tired after a session, the next day)
5) Allow just a little for partner's declarer play. But only a little;
always take the clear-cut action; just do not overbid when partner is
declarer
Dave Flower
Ron Johnson
>
> Has this happened to anyone else?
It has happened to everybody.
Bob Hamman is legendary for his powers of concentration
and it's happened to him
Eddie Kantar has written about any number of his disasters.
He played so badly in one session that his partner
(Peter Weischel) made comments like, (after explaining the
systemic meaning of the auction) "But I don't believe it.
He's forgotten our agreement. Again" (and was right)
And later in the session he had Weischel screaming with
frustation because Kantar's play was starting to induce
big errors by Weischel.
> How did you get past it?
It's mostly a matter of time. And the acceptance that
everybody makes mistakes all of the time. (One commentator
said world class players make a mistake every third hand.
Their mistakes are just generally harder for most
players to exploit)
I mentioned Hamman above. He absolutely will not discuss
the previous hand at the table. It's over. Nor will
he ever ask his partner why he did something.
(Though Michael Rosenberg says that's just Hamman's
confidence. If Hamman can't figure out why his
partner did something it's safe to assume that his
partner just made a mistake)
This may not sound ideal to somebody eager to avoid
repeating the mistake, but "lessons" at the table
are almost always incomplete, overly specific or
flat wrong. Ideally you'd like to note the hand
and discuss the matter objectively later. Yeah,
probably not realistic.
I've been on your partner's side of the equation
plenty of times and despite my best intentions
I've come out with stuff I'd retract if I could.
Not just hurtful comments but "tips" that
were harmful to partner's game. In part
because I'd skipped the fundamentals that
put the comment in context.
Ron Johnson
> John Nash, "Nobel" prize winner in economics and a famous
> mathematician, had no card sense. He was terrible at bridge and could
> not get simple things.
Any number of brilliant chess players were patzers at bridge
(though there is no shortage of players who are excellent at
both)
The theme of the Sherlock Holmes Bridge Detective books
is that so much of what we call card sense is simply
the ability to count to 13 under pressure and apply
logic to the results of that counting.